Author Topic: Why I am not a Lutheran  (Read 6106 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Why I am not a Lutheran
« on: September 15, 2016, 04:40:06 PM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and who declared that we should "Sin boldly?"  He also broke his sacred monastic vows; in the case of his wife this was defensible because she was made a nun against her will, be in his case, he voluntarily became a friar over the objections of his father, and ought to have upheld his vows of celibacy even after separating from Rome.

Lastly, and most importantly, Luther was a heresiarch who did teach false doctrine regarding most of the sacraments.  And he even dared to speculate that polygamy might be acceptable for Christians!

That said, I do recognize that the Lutheran churches are not purely doctrinally Lutheran, but the fact they still bear his name is unacceptable to me.  My godfather Eugene was a pastor in the Augustana Synod and I believe he was a holy man, and there have certainly been many holy Lutherans, but alas none of them have apparently had the courage to stand up and say "We should reject this label." 

As Protestant churches in the Americas go, I do like the LCMA and the WELS, for their traditionalism, and the LCMA has a good hymnal, the only decent modern languahe hymnal I've seen, that retains some Orthodox litanies albeit with the petitions to the Theotokos and all the saints deleted.

However, in one of these, "let us pray to the Lord" is instructed by a Rubric to be followed with the Choir singing "Lord have mercy" concurrently with Lord, and the result is a miserable failure of chant.  Apparently the composers of the Lutheran Service Book either never bothered to listen to an English language Byzantine Rite liturgy, or else, they followed the nasty tendency for Lutheran liturgics to be "cute" and feature Pietistic expressions of emotion.

These churches are infintely better than the abomination of the ELCA, with its mother goddess worshipping Herchurch parish, but, they are undeniably heterodox.  More heterodox than the Roman Catholics or the high church continuing Anglican jurisdictions, or the Polish National Catholic Church, or the Assyrian Church of the East, all of which I privately regard as close enough to Orthodoxy even if defective in some respects, for ecumenical dialogue to move forward swiftly.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 04:40:30 PM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,770
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2016, 04:44:40 PM »
What brought this on?

Btw, they didn't named themselves Lutheran (or for that matter, Protestant). They called (and call) themselves "Evangelical."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,467
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2016, 04:48:15 PM »
In Malaysia they call themselves "Basel Christians" (because of the Basel mission).
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2016, 04:53:15 PM »
What brought this on?

Btw, they didn't named themselves Lutheran (or for that matter, Protestant). They called (and call) themselves "Evangelical."

Some did, yes.  However, several Lutheran churches, including the ELCA, LCMS, ELDONA, WELS, and the old ALC and LCA jurisdictions that merged into the ELCA, and the Lutheran Church of Canada, do explicitly call themselves Lutheran.   There are several other examples around the world, in the form of various missionary churches.

Also, as I am sure you are aware, the modern Evangelical movement, although it overlaps with Lutheranism, is not identical to Lutheranism, so whereas there are Evangelical-leaning parishes in, for instance, the LCMS, like the Anglican Communion, there are also Catholic-leaning parishes.  And there are several independent Evangelical denominations, some of which are also partially Charismatic, like the Calvary Chapel, and others of which are the descendants of Pietist breakaway groups, for instance, the Evangelical Free Church, which is of Swedish-American origin and is common in the northern US.   The SBC also likes to associate itself with the Evangelical movement.

The modern Evangelical movement has also largely bought into Chiliasm, as evinced by the popularity of the Left Behind series with their members.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2016, 04:53:55 PM »
In Malaysia they call themselves "Basel Christians" (because of the Basel mission).

Interesting; the mission being from a Lutheran church in Basel, Switzerland?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2016, 05:02:47 PM »
It doesn't seem too likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity was (re)discovered by a German monk somewhere in the 16th century.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 05:07:58 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,770
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2016, 05:11:36 PM »
In Malaysia they call themselves "Basel Christians" (because of the Basel mission).

Interesting; the mission being from a Lutheran church in Basel, Switzerland?
Itself odd, given the dearth of Lutherans in Switzerland, outnumbered by both the Calvinists and Vatican-almost as odd that the Mother Church of Basel is outnumbered by the Malaysians by about 15 to 1.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 05:13:03 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,377
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2016, 05:14:14 PM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, a.

THe Athanasian Creed is in every hymnal of the LCMS.  Besides, we Orthodox take issue with the Athanasian Creed because of its explicit filioque.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline sestir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • Weihos Bokos
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: independent
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2016, 05:43:54 PM »
How could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and who declared that we should "Sin boldly?"

Easy. A hypocritical variant of Roman Catholicism had Europe in its grips. One person excelled at liberating peoples' minds from Roman Catholic control. His name functions a bit like a vaccine. It's presence makes it hard to propose that such a church should ever become Catholic in any way.

If you are running from a bear and a car wants to pick you up, you don't turn down the offer just because it is a car-brand that easily begins to rust.
If you are running from the Roman Catholic church and a figure from the 16th century can provide you with arguments, you ask no questions at all.

"you" in this case is not literally you, but me actually.
I tend to be Lutheran when I suspect that somebody in the room is Roman Catholic, but not otherwise.

It doesn't seem too likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity was (re)discovered by a German monk somewhere in the 16th century.

Does it seem likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity has been (re)discovered? The Holy Spirit is like a fire. When people have lit a campfire they usually sit around it and not in it.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2016, 05:55:06 PM »
It doesn't seem too likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity was (re)discovered by a German monk somewhere in the 16th century.



To be fair though, the RCC of his time was pretty messed up too. Luther wasn't completely out of the blue that day and the reformation started as an academic discourse. Which probably explain why confessional Lutherans still seem to have quite nerdy approach to religion.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2016, 05:57:56 PM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, a.

THe Athanasian Creed is in every hymnal of the LCMS.  Besides, we Orthodox take issue with the Athanasian Creed because of its explicit filioque.

1. The Athanasian Canon is not the Athanasian Creed.   It is the list of 27 New Testament books St. Athanasius enumerated in his 39th Paschal Epistle, which the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches universally accept as canonical.  Except Martin Luther; restarting the debates of the fourth century which the Pillar of Orthodoxy had settled, he dared to claim Revelations, Jude, Hebrews and James were apocryphal and wanted to remove them; he was pressured into translating them and including them in the Luther Bible, but he did insist on placing them at the end, hence they became known in Lutheran circles as "Luther's Antilegomenna."   His reason for removing the Epistle of St. James was because it says "Faith without works is dead," for this, he dared to call the holy epistle "An epistle of straw"; likewise, on his own personal authority, he dared to modify Romans, placing the word "alone" in the mouth of the holy apostle St. Paul in order to communicate his doctrine of Sola Fide.

In other words, he recognized his doctrine of sola fide was in fact not fully justifiable according to his equally flawed doctrine of sola scriptura, and thus sought to modify Scripture in order to make his view unassailable.  Does not the Apocalypse warn us about removing or adding anything to Scripture?  The Jehovah's Witnesses did the same thing, in their New World Bible, blasphemously altering John 1:1 to say the Word is "Like God," recognizing that again, on the basis of Sola Scriptura, which they claimed to adhere to, they could not defend their Arianism without modifying the sacred text.

Of course, Sola Scriptura itself is flawed, suffering the very signifigant defect of being self-contradictory, given that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 among other verses establishes sacred tradition, Galatians 1:8 anathematizes those who preach "another Gospel" (singular, meaning, another interpretation of the faith from that of the Apostles), and no verse commands Sola Scriptura, and that combined with the lack of a Table of Contents in Scripture renders it an obviously fallacious dogma.  Indeed, it was St. Athanasius, who, following tradition and the emerging consensus of his fellow bishops on which books were and were not of genuine Apostolic provenance, who wrote the definitive table of contents for the New Testament.

2. The Orthodox Church actually does not reject the Athanasian Creed in its original, unmolested form, which lacks the explicit filioque, and which is divided into two parts, a Triadological exposition and a Christological exposition.  This version of the Athanasian Creed appears as an appendix in many Russian Psalters, in A Psalter for Prayer, published by Holy Trinity Monastery (ROCOR) in Jordanville, and according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, in some Greek editions of the Horologion (source: The Orthodox Church).

However, it probably was not written by St. Athanasius, and it is true that we do not use it (except perhaps in the Western Rite; I don't know if they use the Orthodox version or not).

I believe that owing to the lack of certainty regarding its authorship, and the fact that in Orthodoxy, the word Creed is always used generically to refer to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 sans the filioque, we should call the Athanasian Creed "Quincunque Vult," which is how it is known in the Anglican tradition, where it was historically sung as a canticle.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2016, 06:03:04 PM »
It doesn't seem too likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity was (re)discovered by a German monk somewhere in the 16th century.



To be fair though, the RCC of his time was pretty messed up too. Luther wasn't completely out of the blue that day and the reformation started as an academic discourse. Which probably explain why confessional Lutherans still seem to have quite nerdy approach to religion.

This is true.  Luther was largely correct in his 95 Theses, and the Roman church of that era was corrupt and dysfunctional; one can accuse it of being entirely heretical in a way that it would be difficult to accuse the contemporary church of being (owing to the magical effects of indulgences and other paraphanalia the RCC marketed to finance the construction of St. Peters).

Luther did have a positive effect on the Roman church as well; after the Council of Trent we see a more sustained piety and progressively fewer instances of corrupt popes like Leo X, the Avignon Popes, the Borgias, or Julius II. 
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2016, 07:03:48 PM »
What brought this on?

Btw, they didn't named themselves Lutheran (or for that matter, Protestant). They called (and call) themselves "Evangelical."

Some did, yes.  However, several Lutheran churches, including the ELCA, LCMS, ELDONA, WELS, and the old ALC and LCA jurisdictions that merged into the ELCA, and the Lutheran Church of Canada, do explicitly call themselves Lutheran.   There are several other examples around the world, in the form of various missionary churches.

Also, as I am sure you are aware, the modern Evangelical movement, although it overlaps with Lutheranism, is not identical to Lutheranism, so whereas there are Evangelical-leaning parishes in, for instance, the LCMS, like the Anglican Communion, there are also Catholic-leaning parishes.  And there are several independent Evangelical denominations, some of which are also partially Charismatic, like the Calvary Chapel, and others of which are the descendants of Pietist breakaway groups, for instance, the Evangelical Free Church, which is of Swedish-American origin and is common in the northern US.   The SBC also likes to associate itself with the Evangelical movement.

The modern Evangelical movement has also largely bought into Chiliasm, as evinced by the popularity of the Left Behind series with their members.

Good gravy! Isa's point was simply that Dr. Luther's movement did not name itself "Lutheran" or "Protestant."
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,377
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2016, 07:24:03 PM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, a.

THe Athanasian Creed is in every hymnal of the LCMS.  Besides, we Orthodox take issue with the Athanasian Creed because of its explicit filioque.

1. The Athanasian Canon is not the Athanasian Creed.   It is the list of 27 New Testament books St. Athanasius enumerated in his 39th Paschal Epistle, which the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches universally accept as canonical.  Except Martin Luther; restarting the debates of the fourth century which the Pillar of Orthodoxy had settled, he dared to claim Revelations, Jude, Hebrews and James were apocryphal and wanted to remove them; he was pressured into translating them and including them in the Luther Bible, but he did insist on placing them at the end, hence they became known in Lutheran circles as "Luther's Antilegomenna."   His reason for removing the Epistle of St. James was because it says "Faith without works is dead," for this, he dared to call the holy epistle "An epistle of straw"; likewise, on his own personal authority, he dared to modify Romans, placing the word "alone" in the mouth of the holy apostle St. Paul in order to communicate his doctrine of Sola Fide.

In other words, he recognized his doctrine of sola fide was in fact not fully justifiable according to his equally flawed doctrine of sola scriptura, and thus sought to modify Scripture in order to make his view unassailable.  Does not the Apocalypse warn us about removing or adding anything to Scripture?  The Jehovah's Witnesses did the same thing, in their New World Bible, blasphemously altering John 1:1 to say the Word is "Like God," recognizing that again, on the basis of Sola Scriptura, which they claimed to adhere to, they could not defend their Arianism without modifying the sacred text.

Of course, Sola Scriptura itself is flawed, suffering the very signifigant defect of being self-contradictory, given that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 among other verses establishes sacred tradition, Galatians 1:8 anathematizes those who preach "another Gospel" (singular, meaning, another interpretation of the faith from that of the Apostles), and no verse commands Sola Scriptura, and that combined with the lack of a Table of Contents in Scripture renders it an obviously fallacious dogma.  Indeed, it was St. Athanasius, who, following tradition and the emerging consensus of his fellow bishops on which books were and were not of genuine Apostolic provenance, who wrote the definitive table of contents for the New Testament.

2. The Orthodox Church actually does not reject the Athanasian Creed in its original, unmolested form, which lacks the explicit filioque, and which is divided into two parts, a Triadological exposition and a Christological exposition.  This version of the Athanasian Creed appears as an appendix in many Russian Psalters, in A Psalter for Prayer, published by Holy Trinity Monastery (ROCOR) in Jordanville, and according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, in some Greek editions of the Horologion (source: The Orthodox Church).

However, it probably was not written by St. Athanasius, and it is true that we do not use it (except perhaps in the Western Rite; I don't know if they use the Orthodox version or not).

I believe that owing to the lack of certainty regarding its authorship, and the fact that in Orthodoxy, the word Creed is always used generically to refer to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 sans the filioque, we should call the Athanasian Creed "Quincunque Vult," which is how it is known in the Anglican tradition, where it was historically sung as a canticle.

I misread.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline sestir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • Weihos Bokos
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: independent
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2016, 07:39:27 PM »
The Jehovah's Witnesses did the same thing, in their New World Bible, blasphemously altering John 1:1 to say the Word is "Like God," recognizing that again, on the basis of Sola Scriptura, which they claimed to adhere to, they could not defend their Arianism without modifying the sacred text.

Quote from: John 1:1, New World Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*

*Or "was divine."

Fortunately, their bible is not that bad yet and most Jehovah's Witnesses are aware that "... and the word was God." is a valid translation. However, they have abandoned sola scriptura for sola governing body. Which is worse.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2016, 08:45:51 PM »
The Jehovah's Witnesses did the same thing, in their New World Bible, blasphemously altering John 1:1 to say the Word is "Like God," recognizing that again, on the basis of Sola Scriptura, which they claimed to adhere to, they could not defend their Arianism without modifying the sacred text.

Quote from: John 1:1, New World Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*

*Or "was divine."

Fortunately, their bible is not that bad yet and most Jehovah's Witnesses are aware that "... and the word was God." is a valid translation. However, they have abandoned sola scriptura for sola governing body. Which is worse.

Their Bible is ... pretty bad, although their are worse Bibles out there.  A lot of the Dynamic Equivalence Bibles...I think "thought for thought" is problematic because we dont always know what the holy prophets, evangelists and apostles were thinking, and some dynamic equivalence translations, like the Living Bible, strike me as being in a sense what the translator wanted the Bible to say vs. what it did say.

Btw I have heard very good things about the original edition of the Jerusalem Bible which apparently counted Tolkien as an editor.  Not wanting to get off topic, but if any of you come across a PDF of the original edition, please let me know.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2016, 08:46:50 PM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, a.

THe Athanasian Creed is in every hymnal of the LCMS.  Besides, we Orthodox take issue with the Athanasian Creed because of its explicit filioque.

1. The Athanasian Canon is not the Athanasian Creed.   It is the list of 27 New Testament books St. Athanasius enumerated in his 39th Paschal Epistle, which the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches universally accept as canonical.  Except Martin Luther; restarting the debates of the fourth century which the Pillar of Orthodoxy had settled, he dared to claim Revelations, Jude, Hebrews and James were apocryphal and wanted to remove them; he was pressured into translating them and including them in the Luther Bible, but he did insist on placing them at the end, hence they became known in Lutheran circles as "Luther's Antilegomenna."   His reason for removing the Epistle of St. James was because it says "Faith without works is dead," for this, he dared to call the holy epistle "An epistle of straw"; likewise, on his own personal authority, he dared to modify Romans, placing the word "alone" in the mouth of the holy apostle St. Paul in order to communicate his doctrine of Sola Fide.

In other words, he recognized his doctrine of sola fide was in fact not fully justifiable according to his equally flawed doctrine of sola scriptura, and thus sought to modify Scripture in order to make his view unassailable.  Does not the Apocalypse warn us about removing or adding anything to Scripture?  The Jehovah's Witnesses did the same thing, in their New World Bible, blasphemously altering John 1:1 to say the Word is "Like God," recognizing that again, on the basis of Sola Scriptura, which they claimed to adhere to, they could not defend their Arianism without modifying the sacred text.

Of course, Sola Scriptura itself is flawed, suffering the very signifigant defect of being self-contradictory, given that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 among other verses establishes sacred tradition, Galatians 1:8 anathematizes those who preach "another Gospel" (singular, meaning, another interpretation of the faith from that of the Apostles), and no verse commands Sola Scriptura, and that combined with the lack of a Table of Contents in Scripture renders it an obviously fallacious dogma.  Indeed, it was St. Athanasius, who, following tradition and the emerging consensus of his fellow bishops on which books were and were not of genuine Apostolic provenance, who wrote the definitive table of contents for the New Testament.

2. The Orthodox Church actually does not reject the Athanasian Creed in its original, unmolested form, which lacks the explicit filioque, and which is divided into two parts, a Triadological exposition and a Christological exposition.  This version of the Athanasian Creed appears as an appendix in many Russian Psalters, in A Psalter for Prayer, published by Holy Trinity Monastery (ROCOR) in Jordanville, and according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, in some Greek editions of the Horologion (source: The Orthodox Church).

However, it probably was not written by St. Athanasius, and it is true that we do not use it (except perhaps in the Western Rite; I don't know if they use the Orthodox version or not).

I believe that owing to the lack of certainty regarding its authorship, and the fact that in Orthodoxy, the word Creed is always used generically to refer to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 sans the filioque, we should call the Athanasian Creed "Quincunque Vult," which is how it is known in the Anglican tradition, where it was historically sung as a canticle.

I misread.

Would you like me to post a copy of the Orthodox version of the Athanasian Creed?   It really is edifying to compare it with the heterodox filioque version.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2016, 08:53:07 PM »
How could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and who declared that we should "Sin boldly?"

Easy. A hypocritical variant of Roman Catholicism had Europe in its grips. One person excelled at liberating peoples' minds from Roman Catholic control. His name functions a bit like a vaccine. It's presence makes it hard to propose that such a church should ever become Catholic in any way.

If you are running from a bear and a car wants to pick you up, you don't turn down the offer just because it is a car-brand that easily begins to rust.
If you are running from the Roman Catholic church and a figure from the 16th century can provide you with arguments, you ask no questions at all.

"you" in this case is not literally you, but me actually.
I tend to be Lutheran when I suspect that somebody in the room is Roman Catholic, but not otherwise.

It doesn't seem too likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity was (re)discovered by a German monk somewhere in the 16th century.

Does it seem likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity has been (re)discovered? The Holy Spirit is like a fire. When people have lit a campfire they usually sit around it and not in it.

By the way, just to be clear, my criticism is primarily directed towards ose churches today that still brand themselves Lutheran.  I think due to the terrible errors made by Luther, many of which they have renounced, they ought to not call themselves Luther, but use a name like the Evangelical Catholic Church or the Protestant Catholic Church.  Something not associated with Luther specifically.

I would note with amusement that (as far as I know), no Calvinist church actually calls itself Calvinist.  In Luther's case, there remains a misguided hagiography of him as some kind of hero who dared to defeat Rome, but in the case of Calvin, one feels like there is almost an unspoken understanding that, as Rakovsky once pointed out to me, Calvin was a reprobate according to his own definition of the unregenerate, a truly morally reprehensible man.  So whereas Luther was, in my view, correctly called a "madman" by the Synod of Dositheus, Calvin was branded an heresiarch and the bulk of the anathemas targeted his blasphemies.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • The one they call Justin
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,506
  • the Sorrowful
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2016, 08:57:24 PM »
My godfather Eugene was a pastor in the Augustana Synod and I believe he was a holy man, and there have certainly been many holy Lutherans, but alas none of them have apparently had the courage to stand up and say "We should reject this label."
Is that the same as the church that once called themselves the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church and now goes by Augustana Catholic Church, waiting for Rome to make up an ordinariate for them like they did with the Anglican Ordinariate? Interesting group. "We accept Luther's teachings except where Rome has a different doctrine".
Forgive me the prodigal.
One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism: please act like it, brothers and sisters!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2016, 08:59:24 PM »
How could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan with Lucas Cranach, who took it upon himself to edit the Bible, rejecting the Athanasian Canon and modifying the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and who declared that we should "Sin boldly?"

Easy. A hypocritical variant of Roman Catholicism had Europe in its grips. One person excelled at liberating peoples' minds from Roman Catholic control. His name functions a bit like a vaccine. It's presence makes it hard to propose that such a church should ever become Catholic in any way.

If you are running from a bear and a car wants to pick you up, you don't turn down the offer just because it is a car-brand that easily begins to rust.
If you are running from the Roman Catholic church and a figure from the 16th century can provide you with arguments, you ask no questions at all.

"you" in this case is not literally you, but me actually.
I tend to be Lutheran when I suspect that somebody in the room is Roman Catholic, but not otherwise.

A variety of problems with this narrative, but I'll limit my reply to pointing out that most of the "Roman Catholic church as predator"  occurred during the Counter Reformation, i.e., after Dr. Luther had poked the "bear" with a very large North German stick.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2016, 09:11:39 PM »
My godfather Eugene was a pastor in the Augustana Synod and I believe he was a holy man, and there have certainly been many holy Lutherans, but alas none of them have apparently had the courage to stand up and say "We should reject this label."
Is that the same as the church that once called themselves the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church and now goes by Augustana Catholic Church, waiting for Rome to make up an ordinariate for them like they did with the Anglican Ordinariate? Interesting group. "We accept Luther's teachings except where Rome has a different doctrine".

No, the Augustana Synod merged in the 1950s or 60s with the ALC and LCA (one or the other) which in turn merged into the ELCA.   It was one of several regional Lutheran churches that wound up in the ELCA.

The ELCA of course is having a schism; there is a North American Lutheran Church which rejects gay marriage but ordains women.  Kind of like the ACNA or ECO Presbyterians.

Btw the smallest Lutheran denomination I am aware of and one of the strangest is the Protest-ants.  They consist of just six parishes expelled from the WELS in the 1930s over some obscure doctrinal disagreement.  To date, the Protest-ants have stayed independent because their view is that the WELS uncanonically expelled them and they should be readmitted.  Their name conjures up in my mind images of great swarms of ants holding up picket signs, shouting with high pitched voices into megaphones, and throwing tiny Molotov cocktails at the exterminator.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2016, 12:17:19 AM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan

True.

How could one be a member of a church which names its most important worhip ritual after a man who produced a book of filthy antisemitic rants?

Oh, wait...
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2016, 12:54:52 AM »
Luther was actually released from his vows by his spiritual father, Staupitz, once in became clear that he could not be reconciled to the Pope.

I'm more troubled by the 19th and 20th century liberal and existential theologians that supported Nazism, often using the Two Kingdoms doctrine to encourage political quietism.  Esp. because many of these pro-Nazi theologians are still referenced in theology as legitimate voices.  I don't see how theology can be easily separated from praxis in the western mind (well I do, but it's unconscionable).

I do think the ELCA will face some challenges.  Maybe because their worldview is more "guilt culture", "liberal mainline Protestant".  And the natural constituency for this religion is literally dying out in the US.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 01:13:07 AM by Daedelus1138 »
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,897
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2016, 02:15:25 AM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan

True.

How could one be a member of a church which names its most important worhip ritual after a man who produced a book of filthy antisemitic rants?

Oh, wait...

?
OC.NET is full of temptations, but in temptations we are enforced, remember about the thread "Temptation in the Desert: Rachel Weisz and the Undoing of Mor Ephrem". OC.NET helps in becoming unpassionate.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2016, 02:22:01 AM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan

True.

How could one be a member of a church which names its most important worhip ritual after a man who produced a book of filthy antisemitic rants?

Oh, wait...

?

If I followed his logic I should leave my religion.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 02:22:16 AM by mike »
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,105
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2016, 03:54:19 AM »
Mike has a point. If we can't expect St. John to be "Jew-friendly" given his time and context, neither should we wait that from Luther, since so few changed on the meantime regarding their situation. One could say it even changed for worse.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2016, 03:58:08 AM »
Although I have some experience with the LCMS and like their service book, I would never join a Lutheran church; how could one be a member of a church which names itself after a man who produced a book of filthy scatalogical images of the Jews and Satan

True.

How could one be a member of a church which names its most important worhip ritual after a man who produced a book of filthy antisemitic rants?

Oh, wait...

Well, I could evade rhat by syaing that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is not the main worship service of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and isn't even in the Armenian, Coptic or Ethiopian service books, but I shant, for we do have his anaphora and its predeccessor, the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, which was the ancient liturgy of Antioch (just as the Anaphora of St. James was the ancient liturgy of Jerusalem, and that of St. Mark, of Alexandria, and of Addai and Mari, of Edessa, Nisibis and India), and I regard him as a saint.

Rather, I will instead point out that:

- The Antiochene Church was and still is largely composed of ethnic Jews, in both the Greek Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Patriarchates.  For instance, the last name of my Metropolitan is "Kaplan."
- For this reason, or some other,  the Jews were actively seeking to proselytize Christians, particularly Christian women, something the Rabinnical and Karaite Jews of Luther's day did not do, even where they could have in safety (the Islamic lands).  Indeed, Orthodox Jews are required to discourage a gentile three times before admitting him to Judaism by circumcision.
- St. John was probably of Greek, Phoenician, Syrian or Jewish ethnicity, or a mixture thereof.
- Thus, his article sought to criticize Judaism as a religion, and not as an ethnicity.
- In his homily criticizing the Jewish religion, the holy saint did not commission from a leading artist, and then employ, scatological depictions of Jews, the devil, and fecal matter, ( which in the case of Martin Luther, was of a such an obscene nature that many European Christians in an era when Judaism was not widely respected were still horrified by it, and it remained infamous even in the 1930s, except among the Nazis).
- St. John, as far as we know, never preached at a church furnished with a "Judensau" among other demonic horrors that adorn the cathedrals of western Europe (Gargoyles, gibbets, that is, cages in which the rotting corpses of executed persons were displayed, which still to this day hang off of a German cathedral, et cetera).  Much of the Gothic artwork of several of these European cathedrals could best be described as Satanic, and should be removed, especially the "Judensau" sculptures, and I can hardly blame Jews for not converting to a religion that worshipped in such temples.

Also, St. John did not break his monastic vows, encourage his congregation to "sin boldly" (quite the contrary, in fact), or rewrite the book of Romans and delete other books to support his Orthodox doctrine.  Indeed, not even Arius did that; that blasphemy was reserved to the Gnostics and Marcion until Martin Luther.   
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2016, 03:59:02 AM »
Mike has a point. If we can't expect St. John to be "Jew-friendly" given his time and context, neither should we wait that from Luther, since so few changed on the meantime regarding their situation. One could say it even changed for worse.

See my rebuttal.  There are specific reasons why Mike's argument is fallacious.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2016, 04:07:05 AM »
Luther was actually released from his vows by his spiritual father, Staupitz, once in became clear that he could not be reconciled to the Pope.

I'm more troubled by the 19th and 20th century liberal and existential theologians that supported Nazism, often using the Two Kingdoms doctrine to encourage political quietism.  Esp. because many of these pro-Nazi theologians are still referenced in theology as legitimate voices.  I don't see how theology can be easily separated from praxis in the western mind (well I do, but it's unconscionable).

I do think the ELCA will face some challenges.  Maybe because their worldview is more "guilt culture", "liberal mainline Protestant".  And the natural constituency for this religion is literally dying out in the US.

Even if Luther was released from his vows, (source please, by the way), he should have upheld his vows of celibacy, as these were not dependent on his Roman Catholic status, and he should have on that basis assumed the episcopate in accordance with the tradition of the Church preferring celebate hierarchs.  Instead he abolished the episcopate in the German lands under his influence, deprecating St. Ignatius in the process, by daring to declare church polity a matter of adiaphora, and only the less Lutheran churches of Scandinavia retained bishops. 

Also, there are no pro-Nazi theologians referred to as legitimate voices in the Orthodox Church, given the Nazi butchering of Russian Orthodox Christians; of the Orthodox lands, to my knowledge, only Romania allied itself with the Axis (this, like Hungary's alliance, was most likely under duress, since otherwise the Germans would have invaded, slaughtered the peasants, and captured the Romanian oilfields anyway).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the other hand is internationally celebrated, and is respected even in Orthodoxy.

By the way, what theologians did you have in mind, specifically?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2016, 04:16:04 AM »
- Thus, his article sought to criticize Judaism as a religion, and not as an ethnicity.

Calling Jews "pitiful and miserable", accusing them of drunkeness, gluttony, licentiousness, blaming them of Jesus' crucifixion, telling demons dwell in the souls of Jews etc. does not count imo for criticzing religion only.


Also, there are no pro-Nazi theologians referred to as legitimate voices in the Orthodox Church, given the Nazi butchering of Russian Orthodox Christians; of the Orthodox lands, to my knowledge, only Romania allied itself with the Axis (this, like Hungary's alliance, was most likely under duress, since otherwise the Germans would have invaded, slaughtered the peasants, and captured the Romanian oilfields anyway).

Bulgaria, a good chunk of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

And ROCOR was pretty cozy with the Germans then since they allowed to revitalize religious life and transfered the Church authority to ROCO hierarchs.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 04:16:16 AM by mike »
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,105
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2016, 04:16:41 AM »
Bulgaria was also part of the Axis under similar conditions, and Greece was an openly Fascist country during WW2 regardless of its ambiguous geopolitical position and its epic no to Italy.

Edit: I hadn't read Mike's comment.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 04:24:34 AM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2016, 04:19:49 AM »
Why an Earth you have an opinion on Lutheranism? Do you have real-life Lutheran friends or something? And why to come to proclaim one's disagreements with Lutheranism on an Orthodox forum?
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2016, 07:24:46 AM »
It doesn't seem too likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity was (re)discovered by a German monk somewhere in the 16th century.

Does it seem likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity has been (re)discovered? The Holy Spirit is like a fire. When people have lit a campfire they usually sit around it and not in it.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2016, 08:47:35 AM »
- Thus, his article sought to criticize Judaism as a religion, and not as an ethnicity.

Calling Jews "pitiful and miserable", accusing them of drunkeness, gluttony, licentiousness, blaming them of Jesus' crucifixion, telling demons dwell in the souls of Jews etc. does not count imo for criticzing religion only.


Also, there are no pro-Nazi theologians referred to as legitimate voices in the Orthodox Church, given the Nazi butchering of Russian Orthodox Christians; of the Orthodox lands, to my knowledge, only Romania allied itself with the Axis (this, like Hungary's alliance, was most likely under duress, since otherwise the Germans would have invaded, slaughtered the peasants, and captured the Romanian oilfields anyway).

Bulgaria, a good chunk of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

And ROCOR was pretty cozy with the Germans then since they allowed to revitalize religious life and transfered the Church authority to ROCO hierarchs.

Largely Eastern Catholics, from what I understand, as they had remained suppressed even where the USSR had tolerated Orthodoxy.

Also, remember, many Eastern European victims of Soviet tyranny initially welcomed the Nazis as liberators, until the Gestapo showed up, started rounding up the Jews for "deportation," and began to oppress the locals.  The Nazi master plan called for the Slavic lands to be annexed to Germany and the Slavs to be enslaved in order to service the needs of their Nordic overlords.   Hitler even planned a broad guage railway with massive tripple-decker trains to transport German colonists to the annexed territories of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in comfort and style.

The Nazis were fighting a race war, and while the Slavic people were not earmarked for wholesale extermination, they were still to be subjugated.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2016, 08:54:06 AM »
Why an Earth you have an opinion on Lutheranism? Do you have real-life Lutheran friends or something? And why to come to proclaim one's disagreements with Lutheranism on an Orthodox forum?

This is Religious Topics, and many threads here deal with non-Orthodox religions, and are very interesting at that.  I have previously commented on the use of Gnostic apocrypha in liberal churches, and other issues of general interest in the fields of heresiology and comparative theology.

Heresiology by the way is a specifically Orthodox area of study, and it and liturgics are my main areas of interest, for this reason: I love the Eucharist, and I want to understand everything related to why people wind up in situations where they cannot partake of it with us.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,996
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2016, 09:01:28 AM »

It doesn't seem too likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity was (re)discovered by a German monk somewhere in the 16th century.

Does it seem likely that the only authentic variant of Christianity has been (re)discovered? The Holy Spirit is like a fire. When people have lit a campfire they usually sit around it and not in it.
Speak for yourself. The Mother of God had Light Himself in Her womb and was not consumed, just like Orthodox Christians who partake of the Divine Eucharist. Those close to God are all aflame with the Divine Energies. Sitting next to the fire was not at all what the incarnation was about.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 09:03:06 AM by Antonis »
"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,467
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2016, 09:36:06 AM »
Also, there are no pro-Nazi theologians referred to as legitimate voices in the Orthodox Church

That depends on how you define "legitimate" but a lot of the Romanian elders were participants or sympathizers of the Iron Guard. Nor is violent anti-semitism isolated to Romania. See the remarks of St Nikolai Velimirovich on the Jews while he was in Dachau, or the remarks of the contemporary elder Hieroschemamonk Rafael Berestov. And of course the beloved Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus. As Augustin remarked elsewhere, we Anglophone Orthodox are quite insulated by the amount of material that has not been translated for us. And while we can come up with all kinds of arguments to minimize the virulent anti-Semitism in the Orthodox Church, we certainly don't have much room to wag our fingers at Luther on this topic.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 09:39:07 AM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2016, 09:52:23 AM »
- Thus, his article sought to criticize Judaism as a religion, and not as an ethnicity.

Calling Jews "pitiful and miserable", accusing them of drunkeness, gluttony, licentiousness, blaming them of Jesus' crucifixion, telling demons dwell in the souls of Jews etc. does not count imo for criticzing religion only.
[/quote]

I disagree on this point, for the simple reason that if you ever read radical Protestant polemics against Roman Catholics or indeed, us, similiar comments are made.

For example, in 2009, the Calvinist para-denomination 9Marks, which infests the OPC, PCA and SBC, and various non-denom churches, and is led by Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, published on their blog a vile article entitled "Putting contextualization in its place."   The goal was to explain to reformed missionaries in Dubai et cetera how to relate to local Muslims and convert them.

It stressed in particular that the Reformed evangelists had to make it clear they were a different religion from the "image-worshipping, pornography-viewing, sexually promiscuous Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox drunks who had oppressed them [the Muslims] for centuries."

For that matter, if you read the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, similiarly abrasive language is used for the followers of specific religions.

But this is not racism; it is polemical religious criticism.  Regarding the Jewish religion only, and not the ethnically Jewish people, furthermore, I believe St. John Chrysostom was correct in calling it a "pitiful and miserable" faith associated with gluttony and drunkenness, and the Orthodox do exorcize all baptized converts from other faiths, so strictly speaking one could argue from our liturgy that all non-Christians are potentially demon-posessed.   I believe he erred only in accusing the practitioners of Judaism of deicide, because they were not present at Golgotha, and the Roman authorities had shared guilt for permitting it; Pontius Pilate cynically allowed the Sanhedrin to use his own soldiers to kill a man he knew was innocent in order to avoid an insurrection.

Now. regarding gluttony and drunkenness: it is a fact that Rabinnical Jewish fasting is not as extreme as Orthodox fasting, with only Yom Kippur being on a par with Good Friday or in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Fast of Nineveh.  There were no sustained periods of extended duration fasting in the Jewish faith.  There is the annoyance of kosher, but for anyone who, like me, has discovered the joys of Eastern European Jewish deli food as is available in Los Angeles at places like Canter's, this is a non-issue.

In terms of alcohol consumption, Chassidic Jews have a practice wherein a substantial amount of wine is consumed, enough to produce euphoria, as a means of celebrating divine loving-kindness.  I believe this is a continuation of older related Jewish practices, which are reflected even in the Psalms and the Eucharist, albeit after the destruction of the Temple, the Pharisees went from condemning heavy wine consumption to favouring it.

Lastly, Judaism is as a religion, pitiful and miserable; the Jewish religion became one of mourning after the destruction of the Temple.  This is why Jewish liturgical music, although beautiful (I particularly like the choir of the Moscow Choral Synagogue, and the Karaites), is, except in the Chassidic tradition, sombre and mournful; Jewish brides ceremonially break a glass or crystal cup at their wedding in a ritual that was originally intended to express grief for the destruction of the Temple.

Also, strictly speaking, all religions other than Christianity, and indeed the heterodox forms of Christianity like Lutheranism, are to varying degrees pathetic and miserable.  Lutherans suffer the misery of being deprived sacraments like annointing with holy order; although their beliefs on the Eucharist are more or less correct, their priests probably cant consecrate it, although whether or not their communion is real is not something I could say for sure, owing to the mercy of God.

The important thing to remember is that St. John Chrysostom was using the word "Jew" the same way he might have used the word "Greek," that is, to refer to the Judaic religion or the Pagan religion.  He was not speaking of ethnic Jews who had converted to Christianity, whereas Luther's polemic, by including vile depictions of Jews with stereotypical semitic features like the hook nose, obviously was.   St. John Chrysostom was in fact addressing his Antiochene congregation which consisted largely of ethnically Hebrew Christians, descended from the Jews who converted to Christianity and who indeed at that time continued to convert. 

 The Jewish rabbis of fourth century Antioch understandably wanted to recover the members of their faith who had embraced what they believed was a polytheist idolatrous heresy, in particular the women, because Judaism is matrilineal, and it was the women of his congregation that were being lured to attend Jewish services.   

So basically, what we have is a bishop who himself was very possibly, I daresay probably, of partial Hebrew ethnicity (a huge number, perhaos even all, Antiochene Christians are, because many still preserve Jewish names like Zakka, and furthermore, both the Syriac Orthodox and the Melkite amd Antiochians were during Turkokratia largely endogamous, meaning those descended from Greeks at one time or another doubtless married Jews, Arabs and native Aramaic speakers of Syria, Turkey and Mesopotamia), duking it out with Rabbis who themselves were probably partially ethnically Greek or Syrian, over control of a flock the Rabbis considered to be apostates from Judaism who were otherwise ethnically members of Israel; St. John for his part clearly wanted to put pressure on the Jewish adherents who had not converted to convert, by luring them back into Christianity via the women whose conversion to Judaism they had sought.

So, two religions in a battle for control of one ethnic group.

Unlike Luther, who was not Jewish, not related to the Jews, and who viewed them as racially inferior presumably based on degradations resulting from their supposed deicide.  Luther very possibly subscribed to the common fallacy that nearly all Jews rejected Jesus, something we can see is false on the basis of the mission of St. Thomas the Apostle, which largely targeted existing Jewish communities in the Orient (I have no doubt the Nasranis of India are almost without exception descended in part from the once thriving community of Kochin Jews, also in Kerala), and the conversion of most Jews in Ethiopia, a predominantly Jewish state, to Christianity, in the fourth century.

Based on the prevalence of Jewish last names in the churches of Antioch, Assyria, Jerusalem and even Alexandria, I would guess the conversion ratio to have been upwards of 33%.  After all, St. Peter is described as the evangelist of the "circumcision," with only St. Paul specifically targeting Gentiles, and the epistles of St. Peter, John, Jude, James, and whoever wrote Hebrews must have had a clear audience in mind.

I do not believe any polemics of the Antiochene church targeting Judaism should be taken as anti-Semitic, given the Semitic nature of the Antiochene church, nor should any polemics of the early Church regarding Jews be viewed as racist until the rise of Islam, which created a situation wherein the Jewish and Christian millets became self-contained, endogamous ethnarchies with their own legal systems, which as a rule avoided comtact with each other (in part because relations between different Dhimmis were subject to Sharia, in which Dhimmis were always at a disadvantage).

On the other hand, as stated before, the illustrations of Luther's scatalogical book clearly identify ethnic Jews, even those who had embraced Christianity, as the target; a common belief in Western Europe at the time was that Sephardic Jewish conversos were lying and continued to practice Judaism in secret, and much of the Spanish Inquisition focused on the convert community.  One would simply have to read the title or see the illustrations of Luther's book to get the impression he was implying the Jewish Christians were all lying practitioners of Judaism in secret, who in their secret rituals desecrated the Eucharist and murdered Gentile Christian boys.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,770
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2016, 10:40:32 AM »
- Thus, his article sought to criticize Judaism as a religion, and not as an ethnicity.

Calling Jews "pitiful and miserable", accusing them of drunkeness, gluttony, licentiousness, blaming them of Jesus' crucifixion, telling demons dwell in the souls of Jews etc. does not count imo for criticzing religion only.


Also, there are no pro-Nazi theologians referred to as legitimate voices in the Orthodox Church, given the Nazi butchering of Russian Orthodox Christians; of the Orthodox lands, to my knowledge, only Romania allied itself with the Axis (this, like Hungary's alliance, was most likely under duress, since otherwise the Germans would have invaded, slaughtered the peasants, and captured the Romanian oilfields anyway).

Bulgaria, a good chunk of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

And ROCOR was pretty cozy with the Germans then since they allowed to revitalize religious life and transfered the Church authority to ROCO hierarchs.
Bulgaria was allied with the Axis, but-do to fierce resistance from the Orthodox Church from the top down-not the Nueremberg laws. As a result, Bulgaria ended the war with more Jews than it started with.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2016, 10:50:07 AM »
WGW, if that's the case, then Luther's remarks are no more "anti-Semitic" than Chrysostom's, since they were mostly directly towards the religion of the Jews.  His suspicion of Jewish conversions occurred later in his life, and was a common Christian suspicion at the time.

The Nazis took a bit of Luther's rhetoric and mixed it with the scientific racism common to the times.  Not all the blame can be placed on Luther.   Though I have thought about the possibility that Lutheranism on the whole does not sufficiently honor the divine image.   In contrast, the divine image was a major theme of Mother Maria Skobtsova's theology.

Orthodox Christians have engaged in blood libel viz a viz the Jews from time to time.  In fact its not hard to interpret certain New Testament passages in this light.

As for the 9Marks folks...  I find that sort of language ignorant and abhorrent. Polemicism is dangerous ground for an disciple of Christ to stand on.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 10:55:20 AM by Daedelus1138 »
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline RaphaCam

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,105
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2016, 12:30:11 PM »
- Thus, his article sought to criticize Judaism as a religion, and not as an ethnicity.

Calling Jews "pitiful and miserable", accusing them of drunkeness, gluttony, licentiousness, blaming them of Jesus' crucifixion, telling demons dwell in the souls of Jews etc. does not count imo for criticzing religion only.


Also, there are no pro-Nazi theologians referred to as legitimate voices in the Orthodox Church, given the Nazi butchering of Russian Orthodox Christians; of the Orthodox lands, to my knowledge, only Romania allied itself with the Axis (this, like Hungary's alliance, was most likely under duress, since otherwise the Germans would have invaded, slaughtered the peasants, and captured the Romanian oilfields anyway).

Bulgaria, a good chunk of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

And ROCOR was pretty cozy with the Germans then since they allowed to revitalize religious life and transfered the Church authority to ROCO hierarchs.
Bulgaria was allied with the Axis, but-do to fierce resistance from the Orthodox Church from the top down-not the Nueremberg laws. As a result, Bulgaria ended the war with more Jews than it started with.
Interesting, but do you have sources? I recall reading Albania was the only country that did that so I would like to read more.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,467
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2016, 12:53:40 PM »
- Thus, his article sought to criticize Judaism as a religion, and not as an ethnicity.

Calling Jews "pitiful and miserable", accusing them of drunkeness, gluttony, licentiousness, blaming them of Jesus' crucifixion, telling demons dwell in the souls of Jews etc. does not count imo for criticzing religion only.


Also, there are no pro-Nazi theologians referred to as legitimate voices in the Orthodox Church, given the Nazi butchering of Russian Orthodox Christians; of the Orthodox lands, to my knowledge, only Romania allied itself with the Axis (this, like Hungary's alliance, was most likely under duress, since otherwise the Germans would have invaded, slaughtered the peasants, and captured the Romanian oilfields anyway).

Bulgaria, a good chunk of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

And ROCOR was pretty cozy with the Germans then since they allowed to revitalize religious life and transfered the Church authority to ROCO hierarchs.
Bulgaria was allied with the Axis, but-do to fierce resistance from the Orthodox Church from the top down-not the Nueremberg laws. As a result, Bulgaria ended the war with more Jews than it started with.
Interesting, but do you have sources? I recall reading Albania was the only country that did that so I would like to read more.

I don't know how reliable the numbers are, but here is one article:

https://incommunion.org/2009/06/23/a-bishop-who-stood-in-the-way/

Bishop (future Patriarch) Cyril sounds like a very interesting cat in his own right. According tothis article he was born to an Albanian family and an anarchist in his youth. He did a dissertation about Marcionism which strengthened his sense of continuity between the Old and New Testaments and the commonality of Jews and Christians.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2016, 02:05:01 PM »
WGW, if that's the case, then Luther's remarks are no more "anti-Semitic" than Chrysostom's, since they were mostly directly towards the religion of the Jews.  His suspicion of Jewish conversions occurred later in his life, and was a common Christian suspicion at the time.

The Nazis took a bit of Luther's rhetoric and mixed it with the scientific racism common to the times.  Not all the blame can be placed on Luther.   Though I have thought about the possibility that Lutheranism on the whole does not sufficiently honor the divine image.   In contrast, the divine image was a major theme of Mother Maria Skobtsova's theology.

Orthodox Christians have engaged in blood libel viz a viz the Jews from time to time.  In fact its not hard to interpret certain New Testament passages in this light.

As for the 9Marks folks...  I find that sort of language ignorant and abhorrent. Polemicism is dangerous ground for an disciple of Christ to stand on.

I am referring specifically to the book The Jews and their Lies, published by Luther and illustrated by Lucas Cranach the Elder, towards the end of his life, which unambiguously attacks the Jews as an ethnic group and not as a religion.  I am not blaming Luther for Nazism, merely criticizing Lutherans for keeping his name given the reasons cited in the OP.

Also your claim the New Testament contains blood libel is fundamentally inaccurate, amd I suggest you read up a bit on blood libel.

There is in fact no anti-Semitic content in the New Testament, because our Lord and his apostles were predominantly Jewish and the NT describes historical events in a loving, dispassionate manner.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2016, 03:07:04 PM »
Also your claim the New Testament contains blood libel is fundamentally inaccurate, amd I suggest you read up a bit on blood libel. 

Matthew 25:27 comes to mind.

Quote
There is in fact no anti-Semitic content in the New Testament, because our Lord and his apostles were predominantly Jewish and the NT describes historical events in a loving, dispassionate manner.

This is naïve become many modern biblical scholars see support for anti-Semitism in the New Testament canon.  At the time the Scriptures were being written down, there was already emerging divergence between Judaism and Christianity.  This is one reason it is important to read the Scriptures critically.
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,897
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Why I am not a Lutheran
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2016, 03:27:11 PM »
Also your claim the New Testament contains blood libel is fundamentally inaccurate, amd I suggest you read up a bit on blood libel. 

Matthew 25:27 comes to mind.

Quote
There is in fact no anti-Semitic content in the New Testament, because our Lord and his apostles were predominantly Jewish and the NT describes historical events in a loving, dispassionate manner.

This is naïve become many modern biblical scholars see support for anti-Semitism in the New Testament canon.  At the time the Scriptures were being written down, there was already emerging divergence between Judaism and Christianity.  This is one reason it is important to read the Scriptures critically.

"Many modern biblical scholars see" all sorts of things in the Scriptures, whether or not they're there. 

"Already emerging divergence between Judaism and Christianity" need not be equivalent to "anti-Semitism". 
OC.NET is full of temptations, but in temptations we are enforced, remember about the thread "Temptation in the Desert: Rachel Weisz and the Undoing of Mor Ephrem". OC.NET helps in becoming unpassionate.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite